turtledovefandomcom-20200216-history
Talk:Monroe Doctrine
This isn't a law. It's a policy. In theory, the government can use or ignore it as they please. TR 14:33, May 16, 2011 (UTC) :In practice, too: the Falkland War comes to mind. :If that's the distinction, I guess it works for me. I don't see how that applies to the DoI, though. Could the government, if it so pleased, disregard the DoI and everything that's happened since and ask the Queen to send us thirteen governors-general? Turtle Fan 16:58, May 16, 2011 (UTC) ::That's not the sole distinction, of course. There are no statutes pertaining to the enforcement of the MD, etc. :::A part of me is surprised that the MD never got handed off to the OAS, given how it's in the interest of all OAS members and how most (not all, of course) benefited from it in the past. A part is not, of course. The US very often values certain Eurasian alliances over certain American ones. Again, the Falkland War. Turtle Fan 20:25, May 16, 2011 (UTC) ::As for the DOI: the Constitution would prevent us becoming part of the Empire, much as the Articles of Confederation did before the Constitution, not the DOI. Moreover, while the DOI is a nice mission statement, but it is not a statute or an edict, and carries no weight at common law. TR 17:58, May 16, 2011 (UTC) :::The government often backdates things for the sake of emotional appeal, for saying this has always been at the core of our values. For instance, each time the War Department/Defense Department creates new ranks for flag officers--three-, four-, five-, and the little known but very much extant six-star ranks--they retroactively promote Washington so he will always have been the most senior officer in US history. When they do, they backdate such things not to March 4, 1789, not to June 21, 1788, but to July 4, 1776. If that's the earliest possible date at which a thing can be done in the US government's name, doesn't that imply some fundamentally different legal reality when that date is compared with all the dates before it? Turtle Fan 20:25, May 16, 2011 (UTC) ::::Symbolic reality, sure. Legal reality? No. Again, aside from these admittedly symbolic gestures, there is nothing in the DoI that carries any legal weight. It does not constrain the powers of the government or the citizenry, nor does it bestow any powers on either party. You can't violate it, you can't use it for a legal justification or defense (although people do try to use the "rights" of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as justification for not paying taxes or whatever, they obviously get nowhere). TR 21:24, May 16, 2011 (UTC) :::::If you say so. I always wondered how the Marine Corps got away with claiming to have been founded as the United States Marine Corps in 1775 when there was no United States for it to serve. Turtle Fan 22:10, May 16, 2011 (UTC)